>>...you mean there might be more to the end
of time that just a date and about
the planets?????

hmmmmmmmmmm

that is what I have believed all
along.<<

Sorry, I plead ignorance and haven’t the wherewithall to directly respond. More idiot me – albeit in the Greek sense, of course :)




I submit that should there be merit to what I’ve proffered in preceding posts, then it hardly argues for a simple ablution.

Lev 26:28 Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.

“Then I will...” --Gd

The subject is – the blessing and the cursing of The Covenanting between Gd and the COI. The dogmas and doctrines, which contour Xtian epistemology, assume that The Covenant was violated. Were, in fact, the terms of that Covenant broken? mais oui, but YES!

The integrity of Gd’s word demanded a nullification of The Covenant, though not utterly. Question: can there be a restoration without amending condition(s)? How...?

Is there a cursing in view? might a cursing require a ‘cleansing’ – somewhere down the line?

This thread will still be somewhat without continuity...

I'm responding to John317's post on this venue (I don't remember from which thread I've cut the following).




>>Yes. That is what happens when we sincerely and honestly repent of our sins and have faith in Christ's promises. At that very moment we receive God's forgiveness.<<

One might assume that being crucified engendered a ‘repentance’ or ‘sorrow’ of sorts; however, drawing an analogy to the thief having “faith in Christ’s promises” – presupposes the thief having heard [of] Jesus Christ’s promises.

One might equally suppose that the thief never heard [of] the promises of Jesus Christ.



>>This is not the consistent picture that God reveals to us about the condition of man in death, nor is it consistent with how the Hebrew and NT scriptures portray the nature of man.<<

There is no intrinsic “consistency” to either context or subject. The above-mentioned Hebrew and NT scriptures indicate not only ‘change’ – but moreover – a sea change. The dimensions of that change is demonstrated by

the fact and narrative re the crucifixion.

>>There is also the fact that the verse referred to may be translated as "today you will will be with in Paradise," or "This day I am telling you, you will be with me in Paradise." There was no punctuation in the original, and therefore the punctuation is determined by theology.<<

Per “no punctuation” in the Greek text, I take your point; that said, I take exception to the doctrinally-driven comma placement argument re the verse.

KJV Lu 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

YLT Lu 23:43 and Jesus said to him, 'Verily I say to thee, To-day with me thou shalt be in the paradise.'

To propose a comma insertion after “Today” rather than as is historically indicated – introduces lexical ill-form and questionable syntax. I mean, the very fact that Jesus Christ is speaking (today) renders a revisionist interpretation re “Today” redundant. Redundancy upon such a vital point is hardly a thing one might expect from

The Word.

Moreover, appealing to statistical hermeneutics (if you’ll pardon me :-), one notes that “Verily, I say unto you/thee, ...” or per St John, “Verily, verily I say unto you/thee, ...” is epigrammatic to Jesus Christ. Were He posting to this forum today, it might be utilized as His

‘signature’.

Strong’s #281. amen, [...] :--amen, verily

Jesus Christ employed the above more than 70 times with ne’er the implication that this locutive expression ought lend a pause elsewhere – than where it supported a harmonious lexical structure.

>>An important point to keep in mind is that here the thief is asking Jesus to remember him when Jesus "comes into His kingdom." But did Jesus "come into His kingdom" that same day or when He died?<<

You’ll note - that the matter of the “kingdom” was expressed not by Jesus Christ – but by the thief. Jesus Christ simply did the thief's appeal one better, by assuring him that that very day - the theif would be in Paradise.

>>The Bible shows that Jesus comes into His kingdom when He returns for the church at the Second Coming. That is also when the resurrection occurs.<< [ed.jasd]

And Moses? and those whose graves were opened when Jesus Christ was crucified? and those whom Gd will bring with Him when He comes (as opposed to those whom He resurrects)?

1 Thess 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

>>The Hebrew concept of a living soul is that it consists of a body and the breath of God.<<

...and man became a living soul – which tabernacled in that mortal coil, that corporeal ‘tent’ of – flesh.

>>It does not view man as having a conscious soul within a body as did the Greeks and Egyptians and others.<<

(view my second following post)

>>Death is an unconscious sleep in the grave. The dead do not know anything-- that is, until the resurrection. Ecc. 9: 5, 10; Ps. 115: 17; 146:4.<<

These texts refer to concepts re the condition of the deceased - before the crucifixion. A sea change occurred at that time.

>>Sunday morning Jesus told Mary that He had not yet ascended to His Father,<<

Jesus Christ did not promise the thief that He would be – that day – anywhere other than in Paradise. Paradise is very small part of the whole – somewhat as Eden was no more than garden. There is no reason to believe that Gd the Father was in Paradise the very day that saw the thief ensconced therein.

>>...and if we take into account what we know concerning the death of crucified criminals in Roman times, there is evidence that they usually suffered for two or three days before death. This accounts for Pontius Pilate's astonishment to hear that Jesus was already dead.<<

Jn 10 :32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.

The thief’s legs were broken – whereupon, he died shortly thereafter – from repiratory failure.

>>So the bottom line is that since death is an unconscious sleep,<<

That may have been theologically correct in OT times; however, according to Jesus Christ’s own words – that is no longer, New Testamentally, the case – at least, for those who believe in Jesus Christ..

>>To treat this topic completely as it deserves, we would need a separate thread.<<

More than that – it deserves to be treated on a board that will not subsume the topic.

>>But I am sure that the subject has been already discussed exhaustively (if not exhaustingly!) elsewhere on the Forum several times before.<<

That should not inhibit its further discussion - considering the intricacies and the different positions held re the issue.



>>I think it was at least partly in order to show that the gates of God's kingdom are open to those who, however undeserving they are, sincerely repent of their sins and place all of their faith in Christ and in His promises. It gives all of us great hope and assurance.<<

I think that it references – more than the quality of repentance or faith. It seems to point to the fact that should one call upon the Lord, perhaps even – no matter his/her extremity or his/her moral condition – he/she will receive the quality of mercy that is Gd’s.

cut from my ‘potpourri’ thread

[...] what then of the soul?

One, thinking that my query lacks relevance ought to remember --EGW proposed that a soul could be both separate and cognizant apart from its physical ‘tent’. Nevertheless,

how does Writ address the matter?

Could Gd-inspired Gen 15:12 be relating anything other than exactly what it implies, that is, When Gd caused that “a deep sleep fell upon Abram … lo, an horror of great darkness…” , well,

did Gd covenant with the tabernacle Abram --wherein he doth groan, if you will, --or with his spirit (the animate vitality, the constituent man)? What does Writ say?

Gen 15:9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon. v10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not. v11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away. v12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him. … v17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. v18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram,…

Wow, THAT! is some kind of BLOOD convenanting!

Gen 15:12 …a deep sleep fell upon Abram … lo, an horror of great darkness… (‘valley of the shadow of death’?)

Gen 15:17 …behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. (…’pears to bear the somewhat syllogistic hallmark of an OBE)

Prov 20:27 The spirit of man [is] the candle {5216} of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly.

candle: Strong’s #5216. … nerah, nay-raw; from a prim. Root [see 5214; 5135] prop. Mean. to glisten; a lamp (i.e. the burner) or light (lit. or fig.):--candle, lamp, light.

Alternately: -- Gen 15:17 …behold Gd (a smoking furnace), and the spirit of Abram (a burning lamp) that passed between those pieces.

Bbbut, “…rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Mat 10:28)

Will destroy? or, able to destroy? Which is it?

HEY JASD

WOW HERE it is almost 08-08-08

well that means 08-09-08 is also
close. well I will still be here
08-09-08 and beyond and the world
will also still be here


dgrimm60

G’day, dgrimm60,

Ahh, ...fixating? You might do well to, instead, dwell upon the series 08:08:08 - 08.08.08, rather than breaking the line with a 9.

It is said that an affinity with the number 8 generates ‘wealth’, among other good things.

Good luck.

That salutation aside, would you like to (and, I invite you)

contribute what may, perhaps, be of moment – to this thread?

HEY JASD

just a thought since CHINA is
at least 12 hours ahead of the U.S.
would 08-08-08 only apply to china
be cause when they are at 08-08-08
the U.S. is still at 08-07-08. then
by the time 08-08-08 in here in the U.S.
it will be 08-09-08 in CHINA ???????

just thinking

so maybe this is not the end of
the world
:-) :-) :-) :-D :-D

dgrimm60

Does 3 X 10 always equal 30?

Nonsense always remains - nonsense, sadly. :-O

HEY JASD

I am not sure where you were taught
math. BUT math has always been consistent

so 10 X 3 WILL always be 30

I do agree that Nonsense will
always be Nonsense

:-) :-) :-D :-D


dgrimnm60

>>BUT math has always been consistent<<

But, is that always so? Doesn’t it sometimes depend upon perceptual and/or conceptual ideas? What about Euclidean and non-Euclidean angles and space? Aren’t mathematical theses sometimes relative?

>>...so 10 X 3 WILL always be 30<<

Three salesmen shared a ride to a distant city. They’d traveled all day and it was almost midnight. They, tired and hungry, agreed to stop at the next motel for the night.

About a half-hour later, they stopped at the local Motel 30. Checking in at the desk they split the $30 charge – paying $10 each – and took the elevator to their room.

Sometime later, after some musing, the manager called the bellboy over and handed him $5 to return to the three men who’d checked in earlier – explaining that it was a rebate for the late check-in – being that, it was after midnight.

The bellboy, while in the elevator, thought upon how the three men would split the $5 rebate. Whereupon, he pocketed $2 – and, knocking upon the door – returned $3 to the man answering the door; after explaining the reason given by the manager.

Initially, each man had paid his share of $10 for the $30 room rental. Following..., the bellboy returned $1 to each man and kept $2.

Question: if each man received a $1 rebate – each of the three men, therefor, paid only $9 each. The bellboy ‘pocketed’ $2. The $9 paid by each of the 3 men equaled $27. Add to that $27 the $2 withheld by the bellboy and one arrives at the figure of $29.

What happened to the other $1 that would have made up the initial $30?.

What happened is cognitus interruptus.

>>I do agree that Nonsense will
always be Nonsense<<

Sometimes it’s simply cognitus interruptus, yes? :-o